Airplanetire From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1809 posts, RR: 2 Posted (13 years 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3207 times:
I'm really excited that the A340-500 has made it's first flight and think that it's a great plane! The A340 is my favorite plane! I have some thoughts about it though. The A340-500 can fly a route as long as LAX-SIN and SIN-LAX. That is, I believe, a 17 or 18 hour flight. How many people would want to fly for 18 hours straight, especially in economy? I know that I couldn't stand it. I would also much rather sacrifice 2 hours to make a stop in an airport like NRT, TPE, or HKG. First of all, I'd love to go to an airport I'd never been to and second of all, I would love to get that "micro-taste" of a country that I'd never been to. What are your thoughts about the whole thing?
Racko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4857 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (13 years 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3079 times:
well, i think (or hope) that airlines will have more legroom on their A345s than on the other longhaul planes. As mentioned by you, 18 hours are too much for a normal economy seat with the little legroom.
MD-87ER From Austria, joined Aug 2001, 153 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (13 years 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3068 times:
I am on your side. (probably most airline-fans are)
The airlines offering such a service will have to offer something special also in the economy-class to let a passenger choose the nonstop over a 1-stop. And it can't be only the argument of the time saved by going nonstop or 20 channels of PTV.
The longest flight I have been on was a SIN-LHR (around 13 hours) and that was terrible, although I was able to stretch my legs as I was sitting near to an emergency exit.
YWG From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 1147 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (13 years 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3036 times:
I flew on Air Canada's A340-300 in economy from YUL-YYZ on Dec. 29. Now after flying on a 737-200 2 hours before and an A320 the day before, I'd say that even in economy, I, a 6ft 4 guy had great leg room, and I wasn't even in an emergencie exit row!! ,You get a noticeable increase in room. And in responce to the actual question, I could fly for a day I've done the flying all day thing when I took off from YYZ around 7am and went to YUL for 2 hours, turned around and went back to YYZ and 4 hours later I went back to YWG. Arriving sometime around 5pm FLY AIR CANADA
Hkgspotter1 From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (13 years 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3022 times:
I cant wait to fly on either the A345 or A346. As for the flying time. I dont know what I would do for such a long flight. If the seat, movies and video games are good then the time should go by without a problem.
People are already doing 16 hours so whats another 2 !!
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21555 posts, RR: 53
Reply 5, posted (13 years 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3008 times:
Hkgspotter1: I cant wait to fly on either the A345 or A346. As for the flying time. I dont know what I would do for such a long flight. If the seat, movies and video games are good then the time should go by without a problem.
Artsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 33
Reply 6, posted (13 years 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2983 times:
This is halarious, the majority of airlines will have economy seating no different than any other aircraft. The airlines want to pack as many in as they can, and as often as they can and for as much money as they can.
Tullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1669 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (13 years 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2916 times:
As I understand it, SQ will be operating their A345s in a low density arrangement primarily designed to attract high yield P &J pax. Y class will be comparatively small. Lower yield Y pax will still be able to do SIN-LAX on the one-stop 744 service via TPE.
CPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4838 posts, RR: 23
Reply 9, posted (13 years 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2910 times:
The A340-500 is going to be very much a niche aircraft. AC will use theirs almost exclusivley on a nonstop YYZ-HKG route, if I am hearing the rumours from the right people. As such, those routes won't be geared towards low-yield pax who can always go through a stop in Vancouver.
9V-SPK From Hong Kong, joined Aug 2001, 1646 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (13 years 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2897 times:
Well uptil now i haven't experienced anything that's terrible on long haul flights as in my memories are my long-haul flights (LAX-NRT-SIN, HKG-SFO) are all in F class. My longest flight in Economy that i have the best memories must be HKG-SYD last September on CX and actually it was kinda good! Longest flight on Y should be HKG-HNL but that was ages ago so...can't remember!
I'd love to try the A345 though...even it's going to be a long flight but...who cares!
Sllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (13 years 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2884 times:
Even in coach, still, I'd rather just get the flight done.
I was doing SFO-TPE-BKK on EVA for a while (and sometimes SFO-NRT-BKK on JAL), and the truth is, I'd trade away that stop in a flash. The first time you do it, of course, it's fun to go to another airport and see other aircraft and cool things, but about the second time you realize that TPE can be a very dead, very boring place to spend a few hours, when you just want to get home!
Narita's not any different -- sure, it's very cool with all the 747's, but it's not a whole lot of fun after a very short while.
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13747 posts, RR: 19
Reply 13, posted (13 years 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2793 times:
An interesting concept. SIA say they will introduce a new F Class with the arrival of the new A340-500. It could be interesting. No Y seating? Hmmm. Also intersting. I assume that has never been done before.
Agrodemm From Greece, joined Apr 2000, 401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (13 years 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2716 times:
well said airplanetire:
I have enjoyed visiting Iceland on a stop from JFK-LHR and geting a "micro taste" of a country. However, this applies when you are a leisure traveller, and not in business, where time matters.
Parisien From France, joined Dec 2000, 833 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (13 years 1 week 5 days ago) and read 2701 times:
Still, being cooped up in an airplane for 16 - 18 hours would drive me insane....I remember taking a nonstop LAX SYD which i think was about 13 or 14 hours and in the last two hours of this flight I really had had it up to here...
So, i think we cant say whats another two hours ? it could be a lot if attached to an already long flight.
Unless flying business or first, and time really matters which is the case for bussiness travellers...extremely long nonstop just does not sound so exciting.
Greg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (13 years 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2683 times:
One concern...which may be limited to SQ. If the 340-500 will be taking the high yield F and C class customers nonstop to Singapore (believe me this will be the preferred way), won't this dilute the yields on the A380 which are required to make a stop?
The success of the A380 will depend largely on the amount of C class traffic it can swallow (CX basically uses the model that Biz class should pay for the cost of the flight--every else is for OH and profit). Of course this does not apply to the European routes.
I look forward to trying both services when they become available!